Price v. Schroeder

California Court of Appeal Dec 4, 1939 No. Civ. 2344Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A plaintiff who actively participates in the events leading to a defendant's state of impairment or drowsiness is barred from recovery for injuries sustained, even if the defendant's conduct is characterized as wilful misconduct. The court held that such contributory conduct by the plaintiff serves as an inducing cause of the injury, precluding liability.

Issues

Whether a trial court has the authority to amend findings of fact after a judgment has been entered.
Whether a plaintiff's contributory negligence or participation in the events leading to a defendant's impairment bars recovery for wilful misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“where the negligence of the plaintiff is of such a character that it contributes to, and really becomes a part of, and the inducing cause of the defendant’s wilful misconduct, no recovery can be or should be had.”

“The appellant was equally at fault in bringing about the very mental condition of which he complains and which led to the accident.”

[701]

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action for damages for injuries received by the plaintiff while riding in an automobile as a guest of the defendant. The complaint contained two causes of action, one alleging intoxication of the defendant and the other wilful misconduct. The answer alleged that the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care or prudence to avoid the accident and that his resulting injuries were directly and proximately contributed to and caused by his own fault and negligence. During the trial the first cause of action, based upon intoxication, was dismissed.

Findings of fact were signed and filed on November 25, 1938, and on the same day a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial and in denying that motion and “as a part of said order” the court, after stating that the findings of fact and conclusions of law had been inadvertently signed, directed that they be amended and changed in certain respects as set out in the order. The amended findings were filed on January 31, 1,939, and on the same day a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff again moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and this appeal was taken from the second judgment.

In the amended findings it is found that at about 4:20 o’clock A. M. on January 1, 1938, the plaintiff was riding as a guest in an automobile which was being driven along a certain highway by the defendant. It is then found as follows:

“II.

“That it is true that at said time and place, said defendant continued to drive his said automobile after he had knowledge of the fact that he was in a sleepy and drowsy condition, and that it is true that a short time prior to the accident in question, and while driving his said automobile, the defendant had become drowsy, and that it is true that the accident in question resulted by reason of the fact that the defendant had gone to sleep, and thereby allowing said car to run into a telephone pole on the right hand side of the road.

“III.

“That it is true that the plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that the defendant had been working at his place of

Price v. Schroeder

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief